Content area
Abstract
One of the most influential figures of the nineteenth century was Horace Bushnell. In recent years a number of studies have been conducted which challenge placing Bushnell firmly within the American liberal tradition. This project also attempts to correct certain misunderstandings about his theology by concentrating on a redefinition of yet another important aspect of his system. Specifically, this work undertakes a re-examination of his theory of the Atonement.
There are four models for the Atonement, the Ransom Theory, the Divinizational (Mystical) Theory, the Satisfaction Theory, and the Moral Influence Theory. Bushnell is generally classified as a moral influence theologian. Yet, reservations are often expressed about putting him in this framework. It is the thesis of this study that Bushnell's doctrine of the Atonement is a "Moral Power" or "Mystical" Theory of the Atonement, not a Moral Influence Theory.
In point of fact, Bushnell produced an eclectic approach to the Atonement which was fundamentally concerned with mystical union with Christ. This view represents a recovery of an important emphasis within the Bible itself and the early Church. In turn, this study shows that his interpretation of the work of Christ points to other dimensions of experiential theology in his system. The nature of his spirituality is largely kataphatic and affective.
The insight gained by placing Bushnell within the mystical or divinizational model of the work of Christ is used to re-examine his place in American religious tradition. While his interest in mysticism may have been influenced by earlier French writers, Bushnell remains an Edwardsean Puritan, chastened by the valid complaints of Unitarian critics, and influenced by certain strains of nineteenth century Romanticism. These factors combined with his own inwardness to make up his "mystical" bent.
In spite of the importance mystical union with Christ seems to have played in this theory of the Atonement and his larger theological system, no thorough, systematic treatment of this element of his thought yet has been presented. Moreover, the role of his "mystical" language in the larger socio-historical context of nineteenth century religious history remains a fruitful area for research.
